DOCSLIB.ORG

International Conference on the Question of Jerusalem

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
International Conference on the Question of Jerusalem INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE QUESTION OF JERUSALEM “The Question of Jerusalem after 50 years of Occupation and 25 years of the Oslo Accords” Rabat, 26 - 28 June 2018 ___________________________________________________________________________ CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY PLENARY II The Question of Jerusalem in international law and Member States’ obligations International law provisions applicable to the question of Jerusalem Paper presented by Mr. Ziad Abuzayyad Former Minister for Jerusalem Affairs 2 THE LEGAL STATUS OF JERUSALEM UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW ZIAD ABUZAYYAD INTRODUCTION: Public international law refers to those laws, rules, and principles of general application that deal with the conduct of nation states and international organizations among themselves, as well as the relationships between nation states, and international organizations with natural and juridical persons. The public international law aims to monitor the behavior between states, since where there exists a community of states, the maintaining of law and order becomes essential. The primary forum for the creation of public international law is inter- governmental organizations like United Nations through the codification of customary law. The UN develops, creates and enforces international law on many levels. The UN Charter contains a supremacy clause that makes it the highest authority of international law. The clause states that the UN Charter shall prevail in the event of a conflict between the obligations of the members of the United Nations under the present charter and their obligations under any other international agreement (art.103). The General Assembly and the Security Council are the components of the organization that are most involved in lawmaking and legislative activities. Though the General Assembly lacks formal legislative authority to adopt resolutions that are binding on its members, it is highly active in the making and development of international law. 3 The General Assembly has originated much of the existing international legislation, and some of its resolutions are now accepted as customary in international law, such as the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. The resolutions adopted by the General Assembly, albeit formally considered non-binding, have legal character and contribute significantly to the development of international law. The Security Council on the other hand, has the authority to adopt binding decisions and non-compliance with these decisions constitutes a violation of the UN Charter. This presentation will examine the legal status of Jerusalem under the international law represented by the legislative role of the United Nations, and in the light of relevant UNSC, and General Assembly resolutions. Jerusalem: Historical background Founded by the Canaanites around 1800 B.C., occupied by King David eight centuries later, destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 B.C., Jerusalem was then successively occupied by the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans (both pagan and Christians), the Arabs, the Turks and the British. It is unique among the cities of the world because of its association with the three monotheistic religions, which have their Holy Places in it. As a result, it is of a profound religious and spiritual significance to more than 2.4 Billion Christians, 1.8 Billion Muslims and 14.5 Million Jews1. UNGA and Jerusalem 1Cattan, H., (Spring) 1981. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 10(No. 3). 4 The General Assembly resolution 1812 of Nov. 29th, 1947, known as the Partition Resolution, divided historical Palestine into two states: Jewish and Arab, and Jerusalem was given a special status, defined as “Corpus- Separatum”, an independent international entity, governed under special international system and this status did not change since then. The borders of Jerusalem according to this resolution included the Old City of Jerusalem, and its neighborhoods that reached to the east Abu Dies, south to Bethlehem, west to Ein Karem, and north to Shuafat. Despite the outbreak of hostilities in 1948-49 the United Nation made several attempts to establish the International Regime before giving up in 1951 after Israel moved its parliament, the Knesset, to West Jerusalem, and Jordan set up institutions in East Jerusalem. But the UN Resolution 181 remains on the table in the sense that it remains one of the future options in the negotiations on the final status of Jerusalem. Israel's occupation of West Jerusalem since 1948 has not been recognized de jure, although most states recognize Israel's de facto authority over West Jerusalem. The 1949 Israel – Jordan Armistice Agreement endorsed the de facto division of the city but did not affect the legal status of the City3. However, despite the UNGA resolution, during the years 1948-49 the status of Jerusalem was violated with military force and the city became divided by military rule between two states with closed borders. Thisdivision had its official context in the General Armistice Agreement between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Israel 19494. In between 1948- 1967 Israel tried continuously since its creation in 1948 to violate the international status of Jerusalem. In that period, the Israeli authorities 2City of Jerusalem: Special Regime, pp 146-150, ANNEX A, ANNEX B, http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/181(II) 3Fouloy, C. D. D., 2017. Association of Accredited Public Policy Advocates to European Union. [Online] Available at: http://www.aalep.eu/jerusalem-under-international-law 4General Armistice Agreement between the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom and Israel 1949, https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/F03D55E48F77AB698525643B00608D34 5 established the Israeli Supreme Court in Jerusalem, and on February 1949 the Israeli Knesset convened in the Jewish Agency building in West Jerusalem where the Israeli president gave his presidential oath. The UN AD HOC committee on the Palestinian Question (UNGA 194 (III) progress report of the United Nations Mediator5) was informed about the Israeli measures in Jerusalem such as establishing ministerial bodies inside the borders that were supposed to be part of the “international governance of Jerusalem”, and the UN Ad Hoc Committee addressed the Israeli prime minister with a letter that such acts are in violation of the UN General Assembly resolution. Despite the general armistice agreement, the international community kept the legal status of Jerusalem in accordance with the UN resolution 181, and its legal implications were considered within its context. Israeli measures to integrate West Jerusalem into Israel, and the measures taken by Israel following the occupation of East Jerusalem in the June 1967 war, to assert sovereignty over all Jerusalem, have been repeatedly condemned by the UN and are of no legal effect. Israel is in belligerent occupation of East Jerusalem. And under international law, belligerent occupation cannot confer title. The principle of inadmissibility of acquisition of land by force is stated in UN Resolution 242, Nov. 22nd, 1967 in regard to territories occupied in 1967 war including East Jerusalem. Therefore, prior to 1967 no state moved its embassy to Jerusalem, the status of the Consulate General offices in Jerusalem was considered (suigeneris) meaning without any legal form and they were known back then as representative consulates to the (Corpus Separatum), 9 Consulate General offices were in both East and West Jerusalem, six of them in East Jerusalem, and these offices didn’t recognize sovereignty on both sides. In contrast to the Consulate General offices in Israel, consuls in West Jerusalem didn’t submit their assigning papers to Israeli foreign ministry, or diplomatic assigning papers from the president 5http://undocs.org/A/RES/194%20(III) 6 of the state. They had no official relations with the Israeli government and diplomatic protocol maintained the unrecognizing of Israeli sovereignty over the city. The same attitude was applied in East Jerusalem. Consuls didn’t submit their assigning papers to the Jordanian foreign ministry or the King. They had no official relations with the Jordanian government and diplomatic protocol maintained the unrecognizing status. Consul Generals in Jerusalem were and still are reporting directly to the Ministries of Foreign Affairs in their countries and not to the Embassies in Tel Aviv or Amman. This situation is still valid for all Consulates in Jerusalem including the US Consulate until this moment, in spite of the decision to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian lands of the West Bank including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip as a result of the June 1967 war, Israel established its authority over these areas as an occupying force, making substantial geographic and demographic changes by force of military occupation. On the 27th June 1967 Israel unilaterally extended its jurisdiction and legal constituency over East Jerusalem, including the Old City of Jerusalem, expanding the municipal borders of the city to include the surrounding neighborhoods of Sur Baher, Qalandia airport, Jabal Al- Mukabber and Shuafat in violation of the UN resolution 181 and 242. And on the 29th June 1967 an Israeli military order was issued dissolving the elected MunicipalCouncil of Arab Jerusalem that was composed of 12 members. All were exempted of their tasks, and the elected Arab Mayor of Jerusalem, Rauhi al Khatib, was expelled to Jordan. UN Ambassador Thalmann's mission report6 confirmed that Palestinian
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The-Legal-Status-Of-East-Jerusalem.Pdf
    December 2013 Written by: Adv. Yotam Ben-Hillel Cover photo: Bab al-Asbat (The Lion’s Gate) and the Old City of Jerusalem. (Photo by: JC Tordai, 2010) This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position or the official opinion of the European Union. The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) is an independent, international humanitarian non- governmental organisation that provides assistance, protection and durable solutions to refugees and internally displaced persons worldwide. The author wishes to thank Adv. Emily Schaeffer for her insightful comments during the preparation of this study. 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5 2. Background ............................................................................................................................ 6 3. Israeli Legislation Following the 1967 Occupation ............................................................ 8 3.1 Applying the Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration to East Jerusalem .................... 8 3.2 The Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel ................................................................... 10 4. The Status
    [Show full text]
  • Moving the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem: Challenges and Opportunities
    MOVING THE AMERICAN EMBASSY IN ISRAEL TO JERUSALEM: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Serial No. 115–44 Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov http://oversight.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 28–071 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:17 Jan 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 H:\28071.TXT APRIL KING-6430 with DISTILLER COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking Darrell E. Issa, California Minority Member Jim Jordan, Ohio Carolyn B. Maloney, New York Mark Sanford, South Carolina Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia Justin Amash, Michigan Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Paul A. Gosar, Arizona Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Jim Cooper, Tennessee Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Blake Farenthold, Texas Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan Thomas Massie, Kentucky Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey Mark Meadows, North Carolina Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands Ron DeSantis, Florida Val Butler Demings, Florida Dennis A. Ross, Florida Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Mark Walker, North Carolina Jamie Raskin, Maryland Rod Blum, Iowa Peter Welch, Vermont Jody B.
    [Show full text]
  • Sur Bahir & Umm Tuba Town Profile
    Sur Bahir & Umm Tuba Town Profile Prepared by The Applied Research Institute – Jerusalem Funded by Spanish Cooperation 2012 Palestinian Localities Study Jerusalem Governorate Acknowledgments ARIJ hereby expresses its deep gratitude to the Spanish agency for International Cooperation for Development (AECID) for their funding of this project. ARIJ is grateful to the Palestinian officials in the ministries, municipalities, joint services councils, village committees and councils, and the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) for their assistance and cooperation with the project team members during the data collection process. ARIJ also thanks all the staff who worked throughout the past couple of years towards the accomplishment of this work. 1 Palestinian Localities Study Jerusalem Governorate Background This report is part of a series of booklets, which contain compiled information about each city, village, and town in the Jerusalem Governorate. These booklets came as a result of a comprehensive study of all villages in Jerusalem Governorate, which aims at depicting the overall living conditions in the governorate and presenting developmental plans to assist in developing the livelihood of the population in the area. It was accomplished through the "Village Profiles and Needs Assessment;" the project funded by the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation for Development (AECID). The "Village Profiles and Needs Assessment" was designed to study, investigate, analyze and document the socio-economic conditions and the needed programs and activities to mitigate the impact of the current unsecure political, economic and social conditions in the Jerusalem Governorate. The project's objectives are to survey, analyze, and document the available natural, human, socioeconomic and environmental resources, and the existing limitations and needs assessment for the development of the rural and marginalized areas in the Jerusalem Governorate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995
    Catholic University Law Review Volume 45 Issue 3 Spring 1996 Article 15 1996 The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 Geoffrey R. Watson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Geoffrey R. Watson, The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, 45 Cath. U. L. Rev. 837 (1996). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol45/iss3/15 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE JERUSALEM EMBASSY ACT OF 1995 Geoffrey R. Watson * Congress has voted to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. On October 24, 1995-the day of the Conference on Jeru- salem here at the Columbus School of Law of The Catholic University of America-Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995.1 The President took no action on the Act, allowing it to enter into force on November 8, 1995.2 The Act states that a United States Embassy to Israel should be established in Jerusalem by May 31, 1999, and it provides for a fifty percent cut in the State Department's building budget if the Embassy is not opened by that time.' The Act permits the President to waive the budget cut for successive six-month periods if the President determines it is necessary to protect the "national security interests of the United States."' In these pages and elsewhere, several contributors to this symposium have addressed the policy questions raised by the Act.5 I will focus on the Act's interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • An Examination of Israeli Municipal Policy in East Jerusalem Ardi Imseis
    American University International Law Review Volume 15 | Issue 5 Article 2 2000 Facts on the Ground: An Examination of Israeli Municipal Policy in East Jerusalem Ardi Imseis Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Imseis, Ardi. "Facts on the Ground: An Examination of Israeli Municipal Policy in East Jerusalem." American University International Law Review 15, no. 5 (2000): 1039-1069. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FACTS ON THE GROUND: AN EXAMINATION OF ISRAELI MUNICIPAL POLICY IN EAST JERUSALEM ARDI IMSEIS* INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1040 I. BACKGROUND ........................................... 1043 A. ISRAELI LAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND EAST JERUSALEM SINCE 1967 ................................. 1043 B. ISRAELI MUNICIPAL POLICY IN EAST JERUSALEM ......... 1047 II. FACTS ON THE GROUND: ISRAELI MUNICIPAL ACTIVITY IN EAST JERUSALEM ........................ 1049 A. EXPROPRIATION OF PALESTINIAN LAND .................. 1050 B. THE IMPOSITION OF JEWISH SETTLEMENTS ............... 1052 C. ZONING PALESTINIAN LANDS AS "GREEN AREAS".....
    [Show full text]
  • Ordinary Jerusalem 1840–1940
    Ordinary Jerusalem 1840–1940 Angelos Dalachanis and Vincent Lemire - 978-90-04-37574-1 Downloaded from Brill.com03/21/2019 10:36:34AM via free access Open Jerusalem Edited by Vincent Lemire (Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée University) and Angelos Dalachanis (French School at Athens) VOLUME 1 The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/opje Angelos Dalachanis and Vincent Lemire - 978-90-04-37574-1 Downloaded from Brill.com03/21/2019 10:36:34AM via free access Ordinary Jerusalem 1840–1940 Opening New Archives, Revisiting a Global City Edited by Angelos Dalachanis and Vincent Lemire LEIDEN | BOSTON Angelos Dalachanis and Vincent Lemire - 978-90-04-37574-1 Downloaded from Brill.com03/21/2019 10:36:34AM via free access This is an open access title distributed under the terms of the prevailing CC-BY-NC-ND License at the time of publication, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided no alterations are made and the original author(s) and source are credited. The Open Jerusalem project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) (starting grant No 337895) Note for the cover image: Photograph of two women making Palestinian point lace seated outdoors on a balcony, with the Old City of Jerusalem in the background. American Colony School of Handicrafts, Jerusalem, Palestine, ca. 1930. G. Eric and Edith Matson Photograph Collection, Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/item/mamcol.054/ Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Dalachanis, Angelos, editor.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel and Overseas: Israeli Election Primer 2015 (As Of, January 27, 2015) Elections • in Israel, Elections for the Knesset A
    Israel and Overseas: Israeli Election Primer 2015 (As of, January 27, 2015) Elections In Israel, elections for the Knesset are held at least every four years. As is frequently the case, the outgoing government coalition collapsed due to disagreements between the parties. As a result, the Knesset fell significantly short of seeing out its full four year term. Knesset elections in Israel will now be held on March 17, 2015, slightly over two years since the last time that this occurred. The Basics of the Israeli Electoral System All Israeli citizens above the age of 18 and currently in the country are eligible to vote. Voters simply select one political party. Votes are tallied and each party is then basically awarded the same percentage of Knesset seats as the percentage of votes that it received. So a party that wins 10% of total votes, receives 10% of the seats in the Knesset (In other words, they would win 12, out of a total of 120 seats). To discourage small parties, the law was recently amended and now the votes of any party that does not win at least 3.25% of the total (probably around 130,000 votes) are completely discarded and that party will not receive any seats. (Until recently, the “electoral threshold,” as it is known, was only 2%). For the upcoming elections, by January 29, each party must submit a numbered list of its candidates, which cannot later be altered. So a party that receives 10 seats will send to the Knesset the top 10 people listed on its pre-submitted list.
    [Show full text]
  • Social and Economic Situation of Palestinian Women and Girls (July 2016 – June 2018) Distr
    Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia Social and Economic Situation of Palestinian Women and Girls (July 2016 – June 2018) Distr. LIMITED E/ESCWA/ECW/2019/TP.2 9 January 2019 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) Social and Economic Situation of Palestinian Women and Girls (July 2016 – June 2018) United Nations Beirut, 2019 19-00032 Executive Summary This report reviews the situation of Palestinian women and girls during the period July 2016-June 2018, focusing on political, social, economic and human rights developments. Building upon previously published research of the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) on the status of Palestinian women and girls and drawing upon the most recent data available, this report highlights the complex situation of women and girls, revealing both progress and setbacks in the context of the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza. The first chapter of the report presents a background of the volatile political setting and its impact on the well-being and rights of women and girls. It lays out the devastating effects of the 11-year Israeli blockade of Gaza on the nearly two million Palestinians who are denied free access to the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory and to the outside world. It also highlights the gendered impacts of occupation-related policies, such as increasing settlement activity, threats of forced eviction and house demolitions, particularly in East Jerusalem and Area C of the West Bank. The chapter also presents major developments in the security and political situation in the occupied Palestinian territory during the reporting period including the United States administration’s recognition – in violation of international law – of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the Great March of Return along Israel’s border fence by Palestinian refugees in Gaza demanding their right to return to their land and homes and a lifting of the Israeli blockade.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel's Unlikely Transformer | the Washington Institute
    MENU Policy Analysis / Articles & Op-Eds Israel's Unlikely Transformer by David Makovsky Apr 2, 2006 ABOUT THE AUTHORS David Makovsky David Makovsky is the Ziegler distinguished fellow at The Washington Institute and director of the Koret Project on Arab-Israel Relations. Articles & Testimony R ead Ehud Olmert's remarks at The Washington Institute's 2003 Weinberg Founders Conference. I sat alone with Ehud Olmert. It was Sept. 20, 2003, and he was despondent over the progress of peace talks with the Palestinians. Just two weeks earlier, the main hope for moderation on the Palestinian side, Mahmoud Abbas, had resigned as prime minister. And now Olmert was telling me the previously unthinkable: Israel might have to move unilaterally out of parts of the West Bank and Gaza if negotiations with the Palestinians continued to fail. "Israel cannot wait forever," he confided as we sat together in a quiet alcove at a Northern Virginia conference center. "It has to move if there is no chance for negotiations." Olmert, then deputy prime minister of Israel, asked me to refrain from writing about our conversation until he had gone public himself. I understood why. His words marked a radical ideological change with profound political implications. For years, the Israeli right had refused even to consider yielding territory on the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's infuriating positions and the violence raging since 2000 had all but ensured Israel would not budge. Now, the nation's second most powerful politician was telling me that Israel could no longer be held hostage by the irresponsibility of the other side.
    [Show full text]
  • A Threshold Crossed Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution WATCH
    HUMAN RIGHTS A Threshold Crossed Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution WATCH A Threshold Crossed Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution Copyright © 2021 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 978-1-62313-900-1 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people worldwide. We scrupulously investigate abuses, expose the facts widely, and pressure those with power to respect rights and secure justice. Human Rights Watch is an independent, international organization that works as part of a vibrant movement to uphold human dignity and advance the cause of human rights for all. Human Rights Watch is an international organization with staff in more than 40 countries, and offices in Amsterdam, Beirut, Berlin, Brussels, Chicago, Geneva, Goma, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Moscow, Nairobi, New York, Paris, San Francisco, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto, Tunis, Washington DC, and Zurich. For more information, please visit our website: http://www.hrw.org APRIL 2021 ISBN: 978-1-62313-900-1 A Threshold Crossed Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution Map .................................................................................................................................. i Summary ......................................................................................................................... 2 Definitions of Apartheid and Persecution .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • East Jerusalem September 16, 2020
    Precedent for Annexation – East Jerusalem September 16, 2020 Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem serves as the historical precedent and template for any further extension of Israeli sovereignty in the West Bank. Following the Declaration of Independence in 1948, Israel extended its sovereignty beyond the borders designated by the U.N. partition resolution and declared Jerusalem its capital. The move was not recognized by any state. After the West Bank occupation in June 1967, Israel extended sovereignty over East Jerusalem through a process that continues to this day, by which Israeli laws and regulations are applied progressively to land Israel occupied militarily. This process contravened international law, and the international community objected, including the United States.1 United Nations Security Council and General Assembly resolutions called on Israel to rescind the annexation.2 Israeli officials countered that they had only implemented a series of administrative measures to restore order, integrating the delivery of service to residents of a unified Jerusalem as the East Jerusalem Municipality was ordered to cease operations.3 Since 1967, Israeli policy has been to enforce its sovereignty by making sure there is a Jewish majority in the city through a mix of de facto and de jure measures, which allows it to continue to maintain it has not annexed the territory. The new municipal boundaries of Jerusalem left out densely populated Palestinian areas that threatened a Jewish majority. Land belonging to villages near Jerusalem was annexed, but the homes of their Palestinian owners were excluded. East Jerusalem Palestinians were registered as “permanent residents,” which restricts their rights and prevents them from voting in Israeli national elections or holding an Israeli passport.
    [Show full text]
  • Withdrawal from the Withdrawal Plan?
    One Hundred Days After the Elections: Withdrawal from the Withdrawal Plan? Lars Hänsel / Katharina von Münster Executive Summary Israel's one-sided withdrawal from Gaza in the summer of 2005 has brought the country a period of profound changes. The evacuation of Israeli settlements on the West Bank, the historic motherland of Eretz Israel, which was initiated by the Sharon administration, constituted for many a breach of a national and religious taboo for which, however, there were reasons. On the one hand, the failure of the Oslo process had destroyed the trust between Israelis and Palestinians; on the other, demographic forecasts had already prognosticated that the Jewish population would lose its numerical majority in the region between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. After Sharon's retirement from policy, the subject of withdrawal – Tochnit HaHitkansut – became the central campaign issue under his successor, Ehud Olmert. Mr Olmert's convergence plan not only envisaged a complete evacuation of the settlements scattered all over the West Bank, but also the integration of all settlements situated close to the border into blocks belonging to Israel. The withdrawal has also changed the country's party landscape for good. At the end of November 2005, Ariel Sharon announced his resignation from the Likud and the foundation of his own party called Kadima, resulting in the collapse of the Likud. When the 73-year-old retired from politics after an apoplexy in January, Mr Olmert, a former mayor of Jerusalem who was little known until that day, took over the business of government– an administrator who represented a political style which differed greatly from that of the general.
    [Show full text]